Microsoft has no Xbox answer to PlayStation VR's immediate threat

I tried PlayStation VR and immediately bought a PS4 to get in on the action. What's Xbox's response?

Public trials of PlayStation VR are going on at various events across the world and my own chance came at Insomnia 58 over the August bank holiday weekend in Birmingham (the UK one, not the Alabama one.) Booking a slot to try it out is increasingly tough as we get closer to launch and what happened after mine should give Microsoft something to think about.

24 hours after my trial I had a PlayStation 4 sat on my desk ready and waiting for October 13 (or some point after depending on how orders actually go.) Microsoft has teased VR support for Project Scorpio, but that's not coming until the latter part of 2017 at best. PlayStation VR is so good already that it could quickly become a defining feature that drives console sales for years.

VR is still a fairly niche thing but it's very quickly becoming part of mainstream and mobile computing. Google is readying its Daydream mobile VR system, Samsung has Gear VR, and then there's the goliaths that are Oculus Rift and HTC Vive. The mobile options are good, but fall way short of the incredible experience you get from the likes of Oculus and HTC.

The Rift and the Vive are very expensive and require substantial PC hardware to push their experiences. There's no way around it, but for the power and price you do get the very best VR experience around.

Waiting for Scorpio puts Microsoft on a 12-month backfoot

PlayStation VR sits in the middle. There are already tens of millions of PS4 owners around the world who already have everything they need to get in on the action. The rest comes in the box with the headset. It's not as good an experience as Rift and Vive, but it's close enough to be immersive, exciting and ultimately, enormous fun.

It's the first instance of true VR for the masses, and those masses will love it.

This is why I'm a little concerned about Microsoft's seemingly lethargic stance towards the VR onslaught. Sure, VR hasn't exactly taken off yet, but I have now doubt that it will. Just as the iPhone did for previously niche smartphones, I'd wager that PlayStation VR will be right on the front lines of leading and defining the virtual revolution. It can, and will sell consoles, and right now there's no Xbox answer to it.

That it's still a console offers an advantage over the high-powered Vive and Rift: when you don't want to strap on a VR headset you can instead kick your feet up and sink back into the sofa to play Uncharted 4 or Gran Turismo on your TV. VR-capable PCs are perfectly capable gaming rigs, but gaming on a PC isn't for everyone.

I still prefer the Xbox One as a console, and having now owned every PlayStation and every Xbox, I feel well placed to make a reasoned judgment on that. With the Xbox One, Microsoft really kicked it up a gear, and it's definitely my number one. Sony's software is pretty bad, the console is ridiculously noisy and the exclusive games aren't as appealing as those available on Xbox.

It might lose out on things like graphical power, but all round I'm quite happy and believe it's still the best option — especially with the upgraded Xbox One S. But that's me, and I already have an Xbox One. And yet I went out bought a PS4 based on little else other than PlayStation VR.

I'm not representative of everyone, of course, but I am concerned at what effect Sony's latest showpiece will have on Xbox. If VR really does take off, and there's no reason to think it won't, Microsoft is going to be playing a serious case of catch up.

Reader comments

Microsoft has no Xbox answer to PlayStation VR's immediate threat

Pages

well I like VR but really only interested in it for certain things. such as horror games an basically single player experiences. don't see it being used in multiplayer scenarios much. an many gamers really don't have the space for some if the vr things. they have a couch/bed chairs an games lol ill just wait and see ;P

xbox was late to the show with games consoles and now look where they are!

the other big difference from mobile is there are already many game developers producing games for Xbox and this wont change! when MS do it it will probably be better and the experience a notch up from what Sony are offering today! we will see......

"The masses" don't want to walk around with a box on their head, looking like a space cadet. Just like the masses didn't adopt VR some 20 years ago during it's first debut, or 3D cinemas at about the same time, the masses didn't adopt 3D TV either, and neither will the masses adopt VR again. It's gonna be a niche - forever.

I'm the exact opposite. I find the ui on the Xbox absolutely horrendous and annoyingly laggy with a controller that randomly disconnects. Add to this my 4 years of Windows Phone experience which really has been one long beta test - and Its still only half baked with necessary hard resets and apps that won't update yet hangs in the system unable to execute. On my pc such an important tool as outlook works far better on ios. How ms is able to compete delivering these subpar coreproducts is baffling. Its not the ms that gave me the xbox, 360 and wp7......quality and service seems to have nosedived.... Perhaps the huge cuts in their work force is to blame?

Compared to the dreadful experience on the ui of ps4 Xbox is a dream. The ps4 ui is longwinded and seriously lacking. You can shortcut your way around the Xbox dash. But on PS4 not only is it lacking in media options, it takes to long to do anything.

Hold the ps button and you have quick access to media options and headphone volume and to disconect your controller and all that stuff. I think the ps4 dashboard is set up great. It's like the orignal xbox 360 dashboard but better. (That comes from a long time 360 fan)

Call me crazy or blind, but I believe VR just isn't worth it especially for consoles in 2016. Microsoft doesn't need to play catch-up with PSVR either. I think they've been doing a great job with Gaming lately with Win10/Xbone crossplay and Backwards Compatibility.

Merciful heavens, why would anyone wear such a ridiculously monstrous headset like that? A few minutes, sure, nice novelty. But for more than that? And I'll bet it will be at a premium price, too. No thanks.

"and the exclusive games aren't as appealing as those available on Xbox"

I know everybody has their personal preferences, but this seems like more of a statement - one that I think most would have to disagree with. I have both consoles, and it's easy to see that the ps4 has the more robust and more appealing exclusive library. See for yourselves:

Xbox One has the best exclusive arcade racer, sim racer, beat em up, FPS, TPS and 2d platformer. All NOT available on PS4. Oh even best Space exploration game. As Elite Dangerous completely destroys No Mans Sky. And its also not available on PS4. When Scorpio hits and is more than 2TF over Neo PS is in serious trouble.

Did you fail to notice the 2 links I provided to a site that literally lists every exclusive game - both available and upcoming - for each respective console? Obviously I wasn't going to list them all in a comment, which is why I followed with "I'll list a few of the more noteworthy titles here". If you check out those lists, you will clearly notice that the Ps4 has a much more robust library. In regards to the quality of said library, to each his own apparently.

Though most people would disagree that Ratchet and Clank, inFamous, The Last of Us, Killzone, Uncharted Collection, Bloodborne, Until Dawn, Little Big Planet, and Tearaway are all "boring" as you put it. To the contrary, most of these games were well received and critically acclaimed. Don't take my word for it though, do your own research. They might not all appeal to everyone, but they're great games nonetheless.

And for future reference, if you want to make a compelling argument, you should list actual games instead of simply stating that one console is better than the other in every single genre. You were on the right track when you mentioned Elite Dangerous.

Also, I simply listed No Man's Sky because I believe it to be considered "noteworthy", however, I personally have no interest in that title.

As I mentioned, I own both consoles and like them both for what they offer (Sunset Overdrive happens to be one of my favorite games of this gen). I love the approach that Microsoft is taking with backward compatibility and with project Scorpio, but I have no plans to upgrade to either that or the Neo. I think too many gamers today focus way too much on graphics. When I'm playing UC4, R&C, or The Order (I know this game is mediocre, but its graphics are undeniably incredible) on PS4, or Rise of the Tomb Raider on XB1, I'm not thinking: "I wish this could look better". They already look amazing to me. I'm not talking about games that run poorly obviously. I just think we fail to realize what can be done on current, or even "old" hardware. Instead we're to busy thinking about "more teraflops".

Finally, my original intention was simply to point out what I believe to be incorrect that the XB1 has the more numerous and appealing exclusive games catalog according to the author of this article. There's nothing wrong if someone prefers XB1 exclusives over PS4 (or vice versa), but as gamers, we should certainly be able to look past personal preferences and observe the facts.

No to mention developers confirming exclusive VR games being made for Scorpio that are not possible according to deva because PSVR is underpowered as well as Neo being undepowered. So many more great experiences like Fallout 4 VR only available on Xbox and not PlayStation.

I've been screaming about this VR thing for months and all I could get was, well, "we have Hololens." We don't all have THREE THOUSAND BUCKS just sitting around for Hololens and whatever it will turn out to be.

Xbox gamers are getting Oculus and Vive support on Scorpio. In just 16 months. With Bethesda confirming Fallout 4 is being made for VR on Scorpio. And they also confirmed PSVR is nit getting the game because its not powerful enough.

You really made a horrible mistake, and one that is going to affect your VR experience. Sony is just about to release a console that is better equiped, and more powerful to work with VR. In two days the Playstaion Meeting will take place. Its focused on giving us a release date, and specs about it. Gamers are extremely excited, so find your recept and get a refund.

A lot of words to say absolutely nothing about what makes it an immediate threat. Might want to work on actually giving information in an article other than regulating it to "I like Xbox One more than Playstation, but I just now got a PS4 for VR".

The thing is software can be optimised over the life of a console, hardware cannot and unfortunately the xbox 1 sits on the low end (1st last) whereas the ps4 (2nd last) when compared to comparable x86 SOC parts. Sony will run away with the sales with Playstaion VR for awhile as it will take a long time for Project Scorpio when released to gain any form of traction.

Can anyone tell me where microsoft is not showing lathargic stance and they are leading tge industry, seriuosly talking this is the only company i go wrong in judging, they are not even able to polish their windows 10 pc as well as mobile experience, so one should not expect big from this fuddy duddy so called software giant (my foot)

VR is horrible with motion sickness and dizziness. AR will rule the world not VR... even in gaming!!! when you play VR games you will not recognize any thing real around you and it will be bad for human being relationship in total.

Frankly the few people I've spoken to told me that when they tried out the PSVR at our local best buy, they weren't very interested in the technology. Maybe it was because it was the software being demoed, but for now VR would be Microsoft's last concern in regards to Xbox.

Although that doesn't mean VR should be shunned. I think it should be embraced, but 2016 isn't the year for mass adoption. Yet.

Sony have the jump on VR for sure, you can bet it will sell and get games released. Then next year or so when Microsoft get it together it may be better but it will be more expensive and run the same VR games that the PSVR will as thats where the market will be at. Microsoft are best suited to supporting the rift rather than developing their own.

Look at windows phone, it was late to the party didn't get the apps that iPhone and android got as there was lesser demand and has suffered always for it.

You can guarantee a bulk of developers will make their VR for PlayStation as it will have the most customers, they may make a better version for the more powerful VR but it will be PSVR driving it.

I have it preordered for sure and I don't care for the comparisons to the vine and the rift, will I put the thing on and it will amaze me, so far everyone is saying it will!

Think about this, my HTC vive connects to my pc with a USB port and a hdmi/dp port IF Microsoft allows one to use there existing rift/vive headset the same way I use my thrustmaster steering wheel either on my Xbox one or on my pc, you have any idea what that could potentially do for sales of not only vive/rift but for Scorpio???? Take a guess at what event Microsoft could announce this??? I'll give you a hint, E3 :)

Microsoft is a pro in joining a party late. However, it also has the ability to be the star as well. Let's wait and watch. And regarding VR? I think it will take a little more time to be mainstream. Guess Microsoft need to hurry up, but still has time.

Sorry. But only Sony fanboys are actually praising Playstation VR. It's weak resolution and lower quality visuals are actually an issue. As is the framerate. Plenty of hands on declare that Oculus is in a different league to PSVR. And to be honest Sony should have gone with Oculus and Vive the same way MS has.

Scorpios VR is going to completely destroy Morpheus. In resolution, framerate and visual fidelity. So much so people will be embarrassed they spent over £800 just to get PSVR running. That's right. It will cost you £800 for the weakest and vastly inferior VR experience

Sorry but the article is clickbait. PSVR is also not really playable longer than 15 mins. It needs to raise its framerate. But there in lies the issue. It's underpowered. Therefore needs to sacrifice visuals to do so.

Not really into this VR thing(possibly because I haven't tried it outside a mobile app) and I haven't tried HoloLens for obvious reasons but Richard I think Microsoft approach here is to give consumers a product when they can make full use of it. As it stands the x1 isn't powerful enough to use Kinect features and push a game at FHD so why create a vr solution that would possibly be hampered by a underpowered console and less than your competitors? I think what ms is doing is gathering data, seeing how the field does and then to go ahead of them. My hope is that with Scorpio, MS goes future than what Sony/HTC/Oculus are currently offering. I hope they bring a solution that incorporates the illumiroom/kinect and Hololens techs.

Please. Microsoft gutted the Kinect when they pumped out this horrific new operating system. The main reason we bought one was for the combination of voice and gesture control. You think they'll actually do anything decent with VR? LOL.

I don't even like 3d at the movies. You ever notice when going to watch a new movie in the theaters that the non-3d version gets limited show times whereas the 3d version is more prominent? All to make $3 more for crappy 3d.

I know, PS4 has absolutely no decent games. I mean, Uncharted, The Last of Us, Bloodborne only managed to get metacritic scores of 90+, plus there's only the likes of Dreams, WiLD and The Last Guardian to come.

In all seriousness, I don't own a PS4, I've been an Xbox owner since the original toddler-squashing one launched way back when, and this is the first time in its history that my loyalty is waning. The dashboard gets more laggy with every update, and for every Sea of Thieves being developed for the XBox One, Sony have at least half a dozen exclusives to tempt me away. And that's ignoring the demonstrably lower graphical abilities on Microsoft's console. Scorpio can't come quick enough.

No, it isn't and no it doesn't crash constantly. I have had the stream crash twice since it got implemented. I also mentioned more than just games. We have a huge amount of games. The only difference is that the PS often has cheaper games.

As far as I know PSVR is still half baked, with low fps you can use it for short time periods without geting nauseous, if you cant use it for at least 2 counsecutives hours it wont get mainstream, the problem with that is that it'll give VR a bad reputation and will afect all VR devices.

I've tried psvr. The fps isn't the problem. Actually it runs at 120hz while the other headsets run a 90hz. The problem, for me at least, was the low resolution. I believe all current vr headsets have this problem, but when I tried psvr and I was watching the demo I was about to play being mirrored on screen with surprisingly good graphics, then I put the headset on only for the whole image to become low res - I immediately made my decision to wait for gen 2 of this tech. I honestly don't understand why this doesn't bother more people. It really hinders the immersion imo.

Several people mentionned HoloLens, but HoloLens isn't the answer here, VR immersion is still nicer and simpler for games and will stay like that for a while. They are however half right... The answer isn't HoloLens but Windows Holographic !

Put the pieces together:

- Windows Holographic can handle VR and AR/MR, it can process environment understanding that's required for HoloLens, but also for safe immersive gaming where you move around.

- Intel annonced Alloy reference design that will provide the foundation for every OEM/ODM to build VR headsets, even including some MR features through cameras, and already annonced it is running Windows Holographic.

- Microsoft annonced they'll have hardware requirements by end of this year, and they already annonced the Windows Holographic components (shell, environment understanding, gestures,...) will be part of Windows 10 for PC.

So the vision should be clear now...
Any PC with updated Windows 10 will be able to manage VR and AR/MR headsets with a complete software layer that provides launcher, and 2D Universal Windows Apps support within VR and MR, Holographic Universal Windows Apps can run on PC and provide VR or MR 3D surrounding experiences on an attached headset.
At the same time, Windows 10 Holographic will be a specific SKU for all-in-one headsets, completely usable from the VR or MR environement without ever having to attach a 2D display.
​Finally, Xbox One is already running Windows 10, so if performances are acceptable, they could provide the exact same Holographic Universal Windows Apps support on consoles for simpler games like Sony is doing with PSVR. I wouldn't be surprised if Xbox One S already was designed for a bit of extra performances to fit that plan.

We won't need to wait for Scorpio, every Windows 10 PC will soon be able to provide VR+MR with accessory headsets, at the same time, all-in-one headsets running Windows 10 Holographic could be available as early as Q1 2017. Both will come from several manufacturers bringing choices up and prices down. On the consoles side, Xbox One S could have a solution for the not too complex games with performances probably similar to the first generation of all-in-one headsets, and Scorpio will bring the full performances for more intensive games, similar to accessory headsets connected to Windows 10 PCs with Holographic support.

They cover both the casual VR and hardcore VR, with a single platform that can scale from the all-in-on headset to the high-end PC with accessory headset, and a single platform for mobile (Alloy type devices), PCs and consoles, all compatible with the Holographic Universal Windows Platform.

I look at the cost this way, I paid $650 for an 950xl, yes a windows phone. And plan to buy whatever panos is cooking up. And plan to do it every year that they come out with the successor. Based on the the fact that millions pay premium $ for an iPhone as well as upgrade every year. Why wouldn't millions pay for a premium VR experience??? HTC vive sales are said to be approaching 100k units if not already past that. The vive is $200 more than the rift, the vive is seen as the better experience. Combine that with rift sales, lots of people willing to pay for a premium experience.

Also a consumer HoloLens on it's existing tech at 500.00 plus an upgraded one with eye sheiled (allowing the projectors to go full vr with the HPU 2 is also not out of the realm of reality...but for now the ps vr hurts. What Ms gains with rift and Scorpio though is an upgrade path for vr that psvr does not seem to have.

Maybe when Scorpio lands it will stream vr to a wireless version of rift and use Kinect instead of htc beakons. And that would be a premier unteathered experience because u would not need to clutch controllers.

Exactly!!!! Don't forget that ms and intel just entered into a VR partnership and intel is already talking about untethered vr. And Microsoft is set to update window 10 with vr api first half of 2017. I love my tethered vive, it doesn't get in the way too bad, but why buy a psvr with a tethered experience when there is a good chance Microsoft and gang will introduce a untethered experience on the Scorpio...ill enjoy 2016 tech for now, and will wait for Scorpio.

I have yet seen a game built from the ground up that screams must buy for VR. let alone psvr.. Games so far are addons or basic games. VR is great for certain types of games like racing, slow paced fps, simple games. But playing twitch fps,third person shooters,moba,rts,fighting games on VR sounds horrible.

In just 4 months Vive games have improved dramatically. There is even a 4v4 multiplayer ARMA style shooter where you can crouch, lay prone etc. It's incredible. Can't wait to see where this tech goes...

LOL
Have you ever tried VR? Heck, VR didn't even get boring in 30 minutes back in the early nineties (check out the story of W-Industries) with it's atrocious graphics (by today standards) or 200lb helmet you had to wear.

Serious problem for Microsoft. Will be playing catch up even more considering they're already behind. They can target a slightly different segment of the market with the One S and it's 4K abilities which Sony cant with PS4. Will be interesting to see how it pans out but Sony definitely will get a ton of sales with PSVR, the PS4 Slim making it an even cheaper proposition. MS have their work cut out.

Whoa! People are crazy to think that VR (even only as good as it is now) won't catch on, PlayStation fans are totally in bed with anything PlayStation, I personally cringed when FFXV announced the VR capabilities, but some people will have rejoiced, Microsoft need to at least announce something soon, even if it's a half baked idea

At this point, I'm only waiting for the release of the PS4K to ditch the Xbox One and move back to the PlayStation. The PS VR is one of the reasons.

The Xbox One is a perfectly nice console for gaming, no complaints there. But that's that.

As a Blu-Ray player it's absolute sh*t. It has no VR options. The software is atrocious (sorry, I much prefer the PlayStation one. No, it's not great. But at least it doesn't spam me with ads and tons of social crap I didn't ask for).

Since the Xbox One S didn't solve any of the problems I see on the Xbox One, at this point I'm ready to go back to Sony from where I came. I gave the Xbox a chance. I saw no improvements to my experience (on the contrary, I was forced into an even worse UI and all the limitations to blu-ray capabilities remain). Project Scorpio will be a gaming PC disguised as a console and I'm pretty sure it will retain the same limitations and UI. Not to mention, if the VR sets it works with are the Vive or the Rift, I'm not spending that kind of money on a VR set.

Not to mention that for the price of the Scorpio one'll probably be able to buy the PS4K AND the PS VR headset.

So it's with a clear conscience that I'm ditching the platform (well, "ditching". The Xbox won't go anywhere as I don't sell my stuff. But my Gold subscription will not be renewed and I won't buy any more games. And the amount of times I'll turn it on will severely decrease. That's what I mean by "ditching").

And now the silly fanboys can downvote to appease their little hearts.

Why are you neglecting the PS Neo? That will surely sell for $700 or so then u have to buy the $400 VR set putting it in the exact place as the Scorpio with VR. Also just based on power for VR, no one will buy a PS 4 Basic for VR when the Neo and Scorpio will out perform it easily.

The PS4K and the PS Neo are the same thing.
And I'm not neglecting it. HOWEVER I also don't believe that the PS4K will cost 700€ as you suggest since it won't be an answer to the Scorpio anyway. Sony isn't concerned with trying to sell you a gaming PC. The PS4K is expected to be that. A PS4 with 4K support and probably extra juice for the PS VR but not to the extent of the Scorpio.
I expect it to retail for 500€ at the most and nothing above that although it's more likely to be sold for 399€ since the Slim will replace the current PS4 as the cheaper option.

As for your question "why"? Simple. The PS4 runs PV VR well enough. A consumer who isn't looking for anything extraordinary out of their gaming experience (if they are, they buy a PC) WILL be plenty satisfied with the PS4. It's cheaper and runs PS VR.

Take Richard as an example. He knows a better PS4 is a few days away. He knew that for months. But to him the current PS4 with PS VR is enough. Like him, many others.

uh huh... as always your stellar analysis. Let's see, your main concern with the Xbox One seems to be supposed limitations to it's Blu-Ray player. My main response to that is huh? With standard Blu-Ray players ranging from $60 to $130 USD, I've NEVER EVEN USED THE XBOX ONE AS A BLU-RAY player. We are YEARS beyond the time when people bought PS3's to use as Blu-Ray players because the cost of Blu-Ray players were pretty close to the cost of the PS3.

Once again your ignorance pours over your comment like water from the Niagara falls.

I'll answer you in just one comment as I know how paragraphs work without the need to write two comments:

1 - "With standard Blu-Ray players ranging from $60 to $130 USD"

Yes. The Blu-Ray player in the Xbox One S is a major concern. And you talk of wisdom? Well there's nothing wise about spending money on a standalone player when you have a console that also has a built-in player. That's just economical stupidity. SPECIALLY when that console is presented as "your living room media centre".

You never used the XBone player? Good for you. I haven't bought stand alone BD players for years because it's simply stupid to do so when a console already has it. For years by Blu-Ray player has been the PS3 and it continues to be (since the Xbox One can't read all discs it should).

2 - Are we years beyond that? Funny, 'cause I just remember seeing a ton of reviews for the Xbox One S presenting its 4K Blu-Ray player as the cheapest way to get a 4K Blu-Ray player. And I'm betting you many people will buy it just because of that as 4K TVs become mainstream. But of course, your lack of vision prevents you from seeing that.

3 - Blu-Ray players - on consoles or independent - don't wear down that easily. Unless of course you have no life and spend 24/7, 365 days a year watching films on it. Also, funny enough, the Blu-Ray players I had lasted a hell of a lot less than, for example, my PS3 which is still running and reading all the discs the Xbox can't read.

4 - And yes, precisely because the 4K blu-ray player on the Xbox One S is as crappy as the one on the original One, I'm not buying it. It would be utterly stupid indeed to spend 400€ in a console that can't read all discs when a stand alone 4K Blu-Ray player can.

However, it would be even more stupid to spend 500€ on a stand alone 4K blu-ray player when I could just buy a PS4K and for the same price get the 4K player AND a gaming console.

And no, I don't need the Xbox One to play Blu-Rays. I have a PS3 that does it better. However I also don't need to buy another Xbox for 4K discs half of which it won't be able to read and to keep wasting money on Xbox when it's not giving me what I want. Specially when the competition is. But of course, to fanboys like you, that's a too hard to grasp concept, rational choice.

Do you do anything other than infest the world with half-baked thoughs and whinning over people not praising everything Microsoft does?

I do this weird thing where I use equipment for their primary purpose and with an eye to the cost of replacement. Why would I use a $400 dollar Xbox One as a Blu-Ray player, putting wear on the drive when I have a $100 dollar Blu-Ray player that I would be fine with replacing if need be.

​That's called wisdom. I'll fire up the Xbox One to see how the Bu-Ray player is, but that's a definately not a primary factor for me and I expect the same for many other people as well.

PSVR will sell better than Vive/Rift solely due to the fact it's "plug and play". It is not at the level of the Vive as far as roomscale/controllers go however.

Let's just hope that with all of the many first time VR users coming that Sony does it right. Many who have demoed Resident Evil 7 have said it makes them nauseated for example. Not a good first impression of VR for those people...

Microsoft's answer is Project Scorpio, which is supposed to be a PC, or compatible enough with a PC so that people will be able to use a Vive or an Oculus. I think there's zero threat, but well.

If you ask me, VR is not going to be more of a hit than Kinect was (or PS's sticks) for a long time. Reasons: 1) Technology isn't just quite there (not only the helmet but the whole immersion experience, ie, being able to walk or move), 2) developers are lazy in terms of creativity (or willingness to invest resources in creating new gaming experiences vs. reiterating proven gameplay).

PS4 is too slow for real VR. That's the reason for the Neo existing. I bet you're going to see a lot of returns when all the people get nauseated. Or the games are going to be simplified to prevent that. You already are seeing on-rails gaming for PSVR to minimize nausea.

And another thing to keep in mind. People don't have to buy all at once. Buy your Oculus or Vive now. That cost will get amortized over time. then when the Scorpio is out, use that VR device on the Scorpio. You've already amortized the cost of the VR device over the year.

Wake me when a VR device is the fastest selling consumer electronic device in history with 23M units sold. Even with those massive sales Kinnect still failed to get widespread developer support because it was a limited market with only 1/4 of the userbase having the device, which is why Microsoft tried to bundle it with every X1. Now compare this to VR which is even more expensive than Kinnect.

VR will likely be a niche market for the foreseeable future which is why NO AAA developer has dedicated resourses to making VR exclusive games. There is no killer app for VR on any platform and it is almost impossible to market on TV without the users looking like complete clowns.

@Vizer90, I generally agree with your point historically, but I do think there's a significant difference for VR -- it is a trivial change for a developer to enable for any first person game. Skyrim, Halo, Doom, Fallout, etc. Some pretty big games there.

What I'd like to know/see, is if they will enable the main TV screen to still show a 2D or 3D image relating to what the player sees in the VR goggles. My family lets me play Fallout, because they all watch and tell me what to do, so it's something of a team playing and a family game that way. I'm not sure how many people are in a similar boat, but I think if the TV screen can't share the view with others, that would reduce adoption by at least some amount (but maybe not enough to matter).

So you're going to spend $600 (since you didn't already have a PS4), when you could've gotten an oculus rift for the same price. and if the argument is that you don't have a video card, well AMD released a $200 card that is great for vr and will outperform the ps4 and neo. and don't forget that PC games are cheaper and will look better than psvr equivalents. so if you can't wait a year for the scorpio, then it would make sense to get the oculus or vive. plus, i'm betting that both oculus and vive will be scorpio compatible. after all, scorpio is basically a windows 10 box. so you have a vr device that works cross platform.

Sorry didn't mean million. Now you have PS4 owners that I'm sure quite a few want PSVR and some may own a newer Samsung phone and has tried Gear VR which to me is like a demo. Millions may have been the wrong word. But for someone to say VR won't catch on because they most likely won't play it themselves isn't a good analysis

Scorpio has nothing to do with what I wrote. I wrote that $870 is a huge cost barrier. Just because something else may be more expensive doesn't mean that something less expensive isn't still expensive. PSVR is too expensive for mainstream adoption and isn't powerful enough to attract the niche crowd.

It's not too expensive though because the cost can be broken up. Most people that will want PSVR already will have a PS4, so that's $350 off the expense, the move controllers and camera can be gotten second hand so cheaply nowadays they also aren't an inhibitor.

So it's only the VR itself and that costs the same as the console, so if they could afford the console they can likely afford the VR.

There may very well be those who will specifically buy a system for VR but that isn't going to be the brunt of sales. In which case they are going in knowing the cost and will either afford it or not, but that won't be the bulk of those who adopt VR.

With PSVR there is no cost barrier though. Those buying a new console will obviously go for the more expensive version including VR, those who already owns a PS4 will almost be able to treat the VR accessory as an impulse buy.

Microsoft's response is htc and oculus with windows 10 for now. Built my own Scorpio-VR box a few weeks ago with an htc vive...the amount of apps available that work with it are impressive....I am expecting Microsoft's upcoming entry into VR to rival at the least or even best my current Scorpio-VR build. (windows 10,gtx1070, i5,8gb ram, 500gb ssd)

PSVR sits between Mobile Phone VR and Oculus and Vive. There will be a market of course. I'm an Oculus Owner and with a GTX 1080 and PC this year it's costly but it's badass as well as when I get a scorpio. Yes PSVR will have a market (if Sony continues to do with it) but again it won't have an experience like on PC. They will have many exclusives for it. That's why it's my goal to own one as well lol

For Uncharted to go VR I would assume it'll need to switch from 3rd person view to 1st person... Seriously doubt it would be a good VR experience because of the action nature of the game... I personally would feel nauseous right after the first 10 minutes lol.
To me VR should be only for specific games/experiences, not a generally used device

My opinion as well, people tend to thinking VR will have full games like witcher 3 in VR. VR is probaby good for maybe racing games or exploration games in First person, im not going to be excited to play final fantasy in VR, there really isn't a point to do that.

THIS. This is what very few people understand, VR only works for games where you are sitting down such as driving games and flight simulators - and you really need a steering wheel setup/cockpit setup. This has been a known problem for decades and people have been trying to solve it for decades - there is no solution.

The problem is that you cannot walk around because of the space limitation on the room you are standing in, which means for any first/third person game you have to move by using a gamepad/controller - which is not remotely immersive, and nasuating for lots of people. It is also ultimately awkward and not as fun as the existing system.

VR is useless for platform style games such as Ori etc

VR is also useless for any sports games and is also anti-social in that you can only play alone, not even with people watching you play.

And for driving games it doesn't add much because you are always looking forwards almost all the time anyway.

There will be people that say, but i demoed a VR headset and it was awesome and it is awesome for a demo but as a system to play your favourite games it is not good at all. Just like ultimately gameplay is more important than the resolution of the game, gameplay is more important than the VR goggles, and gameplay suffers enourmously from the VR goggles.

I love 3D as a concept, I owned CrystalEyes headsets for 3D and have done heaps of 3D programming but VR has the same problems it has always had and none of them are solved.

About $2100, I modeled it after the approach MS is taking with the Scorpio, 6 teraflops, no holds barred, no excuses, no compromises. And it's room scale. PlayStation VR is suppose to have limited room scale via the camera, I'm not sure if it has any content for it. I'm room scale day one.

And there's the second part. Scorpio is at least a year away. 12 months is a long time in the tech/gaming industry. I think they should have already come up with a plan for this and said more than just "Scorpio, VR, late 2017."

That's not going to stop Average Joe Public trying a PlayStation VR now, having a kick ass time and buying in to it.

To say MS should’ve released a VR solution to just so they can say they can do it too?

Well, I would rather have something that works well and delivers good gfx at a good resolution and framerate (especially considering the quite common motion sickness that comes with first gen headsets - especially PSVR) instead of a “me too” the way Sony is doing it.

Actually (and IMO) PSVR is an attempt from Sony to use the current VR hype by releasing something cheap (in comparison to the Rift and Vive that is) just to make a quick buck instead of delivering a good experience - *cough*NOMANSKY*cough*.

Therefore, I’m glad MS didn’t go the same route and put out a VR just for the sake of having one themselves even though the best you can expect are “experiences” that can be played 20min at a time - that is if you don’t get sick sooner.

The point of this article is to say MS if falling behind in this VR tech on consoles, but to me, it is a huge assumption that VR will be a fully immersive standard way of playing games. I dont think it will and i think MS made the right decision to do not do a 1st party VR project and work with rift instead.

Right now at this point, it is a race to be the first, but just seeing the games previewed with VR this year shows that VR isnt even remotely close to being a standard way of gaming. It is a niche as article stated, the games will be nothing more than a VR demo charged for $50 a game. If VR becomes viable and worth the investment, that isn't until way down the road. At this point, it is im getting VR just to get it, but tell me what the catalog of games coming out that will be a fully immersive game instead of a VR demo?

So the article is to say MS is "falling behind" in VR, but who is to say that is the wrong move?

MS going with Oculus for the foreseeable/near future is the best move they could have done.

Wait until the tech matures and you can deliver something actually good (and see if VR actually takes off) while in the meantime you partner with someone delivering tech that is actually (at least moderately) good.

In regards to VR AMD has stated: “LiquidVR will continue to drive hardware and software technologies that will ultimately lead to the nirvana of VR: 16K/eye, 144Hz and above refresh rate, and virtually no latency, all in a wireless, small form factor package” - I would add as lightweight as possible as well.

In comparison even the Vive/Rift are gimmicks let alone something like PSVR.

And yet I’ve seen quite a lot of people saying how PSVR is the one that’s going to push VR as a whole, but I can see it doing the reverse - alienating the concept of VR if the experience isn’t as good as some imagine it to be which is exactly what happened to No Mans Sky.

You know, as you talk about Sony getting in on vr just for the sake of having one, I watched a Gameranx video on controllers and it turns out, Sony made a power glove shortly after Nintendo did. If you remember the power glove, you know it wasn't very practical although it looked cool. I mean, vr could become mainstream, or maybe history is just repeating itself.

That 12months timeframe works both ways, Sony is using current tech, if ms tech is 2017 tech, then you can easily end up with a better vr experience on the Scorpio the same way ps4 enjoys the edge over the current Xbox one. What happens 6months from now when someone considering a psvr realizes microsoft has something perhaps better in another 6months, you wait for the latter...

@Richard Devine, tech manufacturers need to be careful not to stop near-term sales with an announcement of something a while in the future. If MS announces much with Scorpio, unless they coupled it with clearance-sale pricing on Xbox One, it would seriously drag on sales until the release. A certain amount of circumspection is necessary.

That said, I certainly hope for a quick release of Scorpio and the VR goodness to get ahead of Sony.

@Ruined; Correct and the HTC Vive both for the Desktop because they should have this pretty already done in DirectX with perhaps some additions even wiith the new USB protocols but then that might just be drivers for these devices.

Rift isn't that much more expensive than psvr... A psvr headset WITHOUT the tracking camera is $400 and tack on the "bundle" for the camera and move controls and it ends up being about $500, don't have a ps4? Another $400 for a system that doesn't do anything more than media consumption and then find out your best experiences have already moved on to the neo, which is another probably $400-500 at a minimum.

Also, Sony laughs at the idea of backwards compatibility; want to play those games you bought previously? Sorry, have to purchase them again.

Long term the pc is a lot more versatile and better bang for your buck, especially since you can do stuff other than toss money at sony... Oh, and anything you buy will work with future upgrades on a pc too.

If you had the old system and old games, just hold on to the old system. Stop being cheap fuxks trading your consoles and then wishing you could play your old games on the new console your traded up for. It's not like I can install and play my old pc version of destruction derby or where in the world is Carmen sandiego on my surface pro. Eventually you gotta let go, or hold on to your old hardware.

Well, if it has come out since Windows 95, you could. 32 bit Windows games still play on Windows 64 bit. And I think (not 100% sure) that if you happen to be running a 32 bit version of Windows, you can still run 16 bit Windows programs, including games. I don't think 16 bit Windows programs will run on 64 bit Windows.

The only PC games that definitely can not run on Windows in their original release form are the old DOS games that take direct control of the hardware and memory, like a lot of the later Origin games did (Ultima 7, Wing Commander, etc.).

Not true, at least for my machine. I believe they did come out for windows 95, and I tried to install on win 8 or 7. It's missing dlls as some system dlls were changed or removed with newer versions of the OS. Or it was certain drivers. I don't remember but I kept getting errors when I tried.

One issue I ran into was the x86 compatible games that are x86, may not work on x64. Shogo Mobile Armor devision will not install on my x64 , but it will install on my backup x86 and then trasnfer over to my x64 and still work.

@KillaRizzay, I don't believe that's generally true. Could it be a copy protection scheme and you're not inserting the disks? Those were very popular in the past, but not so much now. Or maybe it is a 16 bit game (which would have worked fine on 32-bit Windows 95) and you're running a 64 bit Windows?

It was probably a 16 bit game. But regardless what the case was (I definitely had legit disks I was trying to install from) it perfectly illustrates my point that there are many variables including hardware, software, driver, architecture, etc. Therefore nothing can remain backwards compatible forever unless technology itself were stop advancing.

@KillaRizzay, good point on backwards compatibility having a limited lifespan.

I know MS isn't doing this, but they could (they own all the necessary tech and I assume licenses): just make previous versions of the OS available via Hyper V as full virtual machine images. That way, thought could provide support all the way back through DOS programs. It still might not work for games that talked directly to the hardware, but that was a fairly brief window and only applied to a few games. Here's an article on some that might not work: http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2013/06/ultima-vii-on-real-hardware....​

But aside from those few, and those whose copy protection requires physical access to the disk, pretty much everything else would work.